While that's true, that's not what's being debated in this trial. What's being disputed is exactly how they glued it all, not whether they have the technology. I know it's hard for you, but try to actually understand the context...

I need to state a few facts here and hope to cover the entire thread with these:
The first amendment does not cover the entire scope of freedom of speech -- it's limited in scope as it only covers the implementation of federal law (extended to state law by the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment), meaning it does not apply to court orders.
An open trial doesn't mean everything relating to it is public, it only means that the public is allowed to...

Since when is slander required to be based on facts? Apple demonstrating that Samsung is wrong doesn't prevent Samsung from fabricating evidence and trying to convince the general public that they are the good guys, and this isn't too far fetched either, they've already destroyed evidence too, even against court orders...

Many of those apps aren't any more complex than the samples Apple makes available to developers. If anything. I think the iTunes App Store needs more screening to prevent crapware from getting published.

Unfortunately for them, that's not even the case. Patent trolls sue for licensing fees, not for injunctions. By suing for an injunction without an implementation you are essentially throwing your claim out of the window because without the willingness to license or an existing implementation in the market you can't claim loss of profit (there would never be profit under those conditions even if there was no infringement). The only explanation I see for this particular...

Congratulations for missing the point! The question here is: what damage? If you aren't willing to license (as demonstrated by the injunction demand) nor do you have an implementation, you have 0 damage to claim.

One has to wonder how someone can claim damages when they never actually commercialized an implementation nor are demonstrating the will to license the IP, following that it would also be interesting to understand why a ban would be required when the supposedly infringing components are not implemented on the phones.

Appeal to authority and ad hominem are both fallacies. If you want to have a rational debate, debate the content of the argument, not the irrelevant context of the posters. What you are attempting to do is to subvert the debate by attacking the posters rather than their posts because you don't have any real arguments.